High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Girinagara Arya Vysya Sangha … vs Smt Deepa A on 28 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
M/S Girinagara Arya Vysya Sangha … vs Smt Deepa A on 28 October, 2010
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala
VALND:

EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28"" DAY OF OCTOBER 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSMA   ;_. A' 

REGULAR FERST APPEAL N0. 1545/2010  ' 

A/W.MISC.CVL.1 7026/2010, M1s0.cV1};i._§§*;a08g2.0Q X O O'

3: MISC.CVL.189(33/20.1%)"

BETWEEN:

M/s.G1'rinagara Arya Vysya Sa:igha'--(R'Vj;. }
Regd. Office at N0.784, " ._ C :
Hosakerehalliviiiage,   .   . 
Uttarahalli Hobli,  O       

Bangalore S0uth.'I'a}uk}__';'. 'V  __    

Rep. by its President, " .    
sr1.M.V.Reddarppa'~$é%Lty;.,_ _  _ * "   ...APPELLANT

{By Sri.B.L.Sanxj€«ej?, Aciv.) A

1;'--_S1I1tV§fl(;'€paL'A,"..' 
W/0,_Sri0dhar, " V _
Aged about 24. years,
V No.34-4, Puttaiahindusirial Area,
* 1" Main Road,'

 - 2 Of-Eamaksiiipalya,

pa  

f.3a':vrgga1.oreL560 079.

0jj_Sri--.N}Parthasarathy Shetty,

  VVVS/ciiate Narasirnha Shetty,
" Aged about 76 years,



5214, 3" Cross,
3"' Block, 3"" Main,
Thyagarajanagar, ~ '

Bangalore-560 O85. 

This R.F'.A is filed under Section; Qsor em -etgamet"'ehe«

Judgment & Decree dt.22.7.201O passed--in ;O;S.No;.7762,'2OC8 

the file of the XXXEX Addl. City Civil_ Judge, "Bangalore; *deeree"mg'«..p

the suit for permanent injunction. ' _  

Misc.CVl.17026/ 10 is filed u / s._1_5-1_of._CPC praying to permit
them to prefer an appeal 'against the Judgment "St Decree
dt.22.7.201O passed by the  vAudd'1a "City Civil Judge.
Bangalore city, in o.s.No.7762/2oos,=:n t_he'~.i_n.te1§est of justice SI
equity.    ---  W '

Mise.cv1.1e9Hc2_s/:;'is'1.e.is,fi1ed under"o:~de'r 41 Rule 5 of cpc
praying to grant an  interim-.orde.r_ of Stay, Staying the Judgment
& Decree dt.22.7.'2,01Lf) ;passed.byf_the  Add]. City Civil Judge,
Bangalore city',"'in. ,gOt.,S.No.;.7782/2008'"&r--further be p1eased;to stay
the dispossession 'of; the~,appe'1«lant from the schedule property,
during the pendency ofthe *abtoV_e"appea1, in the interest of justice
& equity.-» " " f U.    

Misc,.CV1.189633/1'O7' is filed under Order 41 Rule 5
rp/.w.See. ];Ei.;,1 of CPC, praying. to grant an ad interim. order of stay,
svtaytmg as further..constru'ction by the respondent on the schedule
'pr'o_perty,~ during thependency of the above appeal, in the interest
of3'us_tice.&eAeq'L1.Vity it  

These  'coming on for orders, this day, the Court

 _ deiivered the follotivingt ~«



JUDGMENT

Misc.Cvl. 17026/ 2010 is an application filed under Section
151 of CPC by the appellant seeking permission to prefer anappeal

against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.07.2010

O.S.No.7762/2008 on the file of XXXIX Addl. City

Bangalore city. S

2. Learned counsel for the appell_a:ntA..V

appellant is the registered Sanghaand it is.__repVre’sen–teVd”‘by its”

president to an affidavit
seeking permissionwptol stated in the affidavit
that the owner in physical possession of
the property hearing :_sit:tiated in the layout formed by the
Vishwabhaiafhi Co–operative Society Limited at
Housingvflméomplex Layout, Hosakerehalli village,

Utta1*ahalliV’lV3angalore South Taluk, measuring East to West

and ».i§iorth.t:o£’..–South 60′, having purchased the same under

‘«.l«l’.j’j:fc3g_i’s-‘tered deed dated 17.()6.l993 in the name of erstwhile

{*~’.VVVPresident’.pf the Sangha, viz., -Srilvenkatachalaiah Setty. The

. President construdtfia Ganesha temple and a shed

therein and performing pooja and other activities. Though the

schedule property was purchased in the name of the4vVp_re}.?i*:>us

President of the appellant/Society, the sale consideratilonirasi

out of the funds of the appellant/Sangha.MIt is al.so’stated’:t1’i–at it 00

29.07.1997. the previous President of the has

executed a Will bequeathing the suit schedule’Vpropc:rty_in_viavdurof ;

the appellant/Sangha and died    the
appellant/ Sangha is the    schedule

property. But the Respondepntdl#TVo.0l__lltrie¢g~.iltg;f¢vnter into the suit.

schedule property and Decree dated
22.07.2010 passed The appellant noticed
that the to said suit nor the schedule
mentioned inthe’ the property of the appellant.

It is also stated tliesulit filed by one Sri.N.Parthasarathi

wimfwas the powevrmofl attorney holder for the appellant in the

suit and the appellant was not aware of the

filedlby thefirespondent as notice was served neither on the

-. ivappellant./Sangha nor the defendant in the said suit. It is further

that the Judgment and Decree brought by the

. l’l:p”tR_’espoI}1dent No.1 pertains to the Site No.765 measuring East to

4. In the result, the application. Misc.Cvl.l7026/2010

seeking permission to prefer appeal fails and the same isfhereby

dismissed. Consequently, appeal in R.F.A.No.1645/2.(,\.l:l;l

rejected with liberty to take such course of remedy ayai.labIVeV.ivr1 _& it

In view of the above order, Misc.Cv*lP 1*O_

another application lViisc.Cvl. 18963;,/20 l0«’–for’ stay hot” pp

for consideration and accordingly, theyiare disposelclaoff.

bnV*